To be shocked at ‘school readiness’

I think we’re in the gentle parenting generation whereby parents don’t say no to their kids and kids have their heads stuck in iPads. I was out for Sunday lunch recently in a nice restaurant, the table beside us had two children aged maybe 4 and 6, their parents. In the mid 30’s I’d guess and a set of grandparents, mid 60’s or so - the two children had their heads in iPads the entire time. The parents assisted them to put the iPads standing so they could continue watching while they ate their lunch. I felt very sad watching it. Children learn through observation, they were missing out on so much learning - using manners, eating correctly, having conversation.

We don’t go out much anymore with the COL but I’m sure this scene is replicated all across the western world.

The reading of the clock is a good one; lots don’t know how to and that’s what’s on the walls and in the exam halls.

I’d start involving him with decisions to do with travel - what time do we need to set off with if we want to get here? How are we going to get there? What do we need to take with us? Checking the calendar to prep for the day before etc. to get him a bit more independent as he’ll have to move around a lot and have different equipment on different days.

Loads struggle getting dressed quickly after PE, especially trying their tie as their mum does it in the morning for them.

Also, making financial decisions. Loads of our year 7s come in on the Monday and use the cashless catering (so they don’t see money being handed over) and they go wild. Snacks at break. Big lunch and dessert. Extra for their mates. Then parents ring up on Tuesday to ask why the £25 that they put on on Sunday night has already disappeared.

Where did I bash working mothers?

I said if children are in full time childcare, the majority of their waking hours are not spent with a parent, so that is where they will learn or not learn most things.

I think it’s awful that mothers (and fathers) are the default scapegoats for anything perceived to be going wrong with “children today.” Childcare costs are astronomical and the quality should be much better than it is on the whole. It’s not an affront on working mothers to suggest the place where a child spends 40-55 hours/week should be toilet training them.

Lots of working class kids left school at 12 or similar during the war. There weren't enough school places. My father only had school in the mornings.

Your mother is a paragon.

Washing machines were much worse which meant more ironing. Today, I can put a wash on that automatically dries - the dryer saves on ironing. Over a week with a family, washing cloth nappies modern technology must save about 4 hours work at least. The irons weren’t as good and took a lot longer to use. The dishwasher saves a minimum of 30 minutes a day. I have a robot hoover, that saves me 1 or 2 hours a week. I just put my oven on an automatic clean - thats an hour saved. I have my shopping delivered that saves me a good 3 hours. Cleaning products are also a lot better that must cut the time down a bit.Clothes weren’t replaced with more cheap clothes they were mended, by hand. I’ve not covered everything. Labour saving devices are called labour saving devices because they save labour - women’s labour.

What’s that 12 hours a week - say I’m exaggerating and call it 6 hours a week. The further back you go the harder and more intensive the house work. Don’t romanticise the past it was hard physical work for women.

As I said parents today face different challenges but they are not time poor.

I believe you.

I tutor for entrance exams, mostly 8-10 year olds. A significant number of the children I tutor have no basic manners. Lots of parents are simply not teaching basic skills or instilling basic expectations and how to act in a courteous manner any longer. They simply don't think it's important to teach basic skills like greeting people or saying please or thank you.

Most of my families are middle class or very well off. It's got nothing to do with being disadvantaged. In fact, the middle class ones have the worst manners, parents too!

Please explain where this has been shown to work best. It's certainly not my experience. And play-based learning shouldn't be a "do whatever you like children" model. It should be structured learning planned around play, such as they do at good nurseries (for 3 and 4 year olds). In Scotland I gather that the children are presented with lots of toys / play areas, and are told to do whatever they like. Which helps explain how little they learn at primary school. And I've heard that it's not good for them emotionally, either - a complete lack of structure and purpose.

If my DC had been forced to play all day at the age of 5 and 6, they'd have been bored to tears and probably quite emotionally distressed. My DC2 was taught a few basic phonics at nursery aged 3, and from that taught themselves to read. Telling them to play all day until they were 7 would been incredibly frustrating for them. That would have been similar for many other children in the class too.

The evening class route was decimated by the Tories. Yes there are still some, but not many and they cost a fair bit if not on benefits. They used to be mostly free or very cheap and did not have to lead to a qualification. So there was more a culture of going to evening classes to learn things. People used to go to evening classes to learn enough french to use on holiday, or to learn how to bake. There were even parenting courses.

How many teenagers would be able to meaningfully improve their life by doing that?

If a year or two of studying in the evening leads to a significant positive impact in a tangible timeframe, many would.

Amazing! Astounding! What is parental leave like in your country now?

Left school before secondary age and they were born in 1949, I would argue that was pretty unusual

Definitely illegal.

We are talking about 10+ countries and 40+ years, so many models were used over the time, often several in parallel. From creches for 1 yo and weekly nurseries, to "4 years partially paid parental leave, with nursery place guaranteed from 3, compulsory pre-school at 5 and starting school at 6".

The changes were lead by combination of child development, current spin on ideology and central planning economical reasons, thought often masked as something else.
For example in my country when bigger unemployment rise was expected, the partially paid parental leave was prolonged by a year, so one cohort of women didn't hit the employement market and took jobs/became unemployed at the worst moment. It was explained by supporting families and child wellfare.

Ordinary children left school at 13 then. But there was great enthusiasm for educating yourself, through evening classes and so on. Which is not the case now

I think this is an important point. Young people going to evening classes to improve their knowledge was quite commonplace in the 60s. Hardly anyone went to university in the 60s, but after leaving school at 15 my brothers got apprenticeships in engineering and went to what we called 'night school' alongside. It was the culture, if you didn't want to go down the pit.
How many teenagers nowadays would tolerate that?

I'm a parent who spent 40/50 hours working. My child started school last week and can do all the things OP mentioned and use cutlery etc.

I'm also a teacher so had a greater awareness of school readiness. Taught in a range of different schools and typically children of working parents were actually more ready.

In one school where our families were more deprived, non-working parents and very high percentage of disadvantaged pupils a lot of reception kids arrived in buggies, not toilet trained and unable to to do things like blow their nose. We also put a huge amount of effort into engaging with these parents, we invited new parents in for a school ready workshop in July: low turnout. Did phonics and maths workshops with the same low turnout.

I don't know what the solution is. Earlier intervention is definitely needed but what little support was there was decimated by the tories.

People had to do it themselves as there was no alternative. Half of young people go to university now. You are not comparing eggs with eggs.

It was far more common for under threes to be with a childminder back then.

There was an excellent documentary on R4 some years ago where they explained the French maternelle system, which at the time was voluntary but is now compulsory from age 3. They explained that in year 1 they learn to master shoulder-scale movements, in year 2 elbows, and in year 3 wrists. That way they are prepared to learn joined-up writing on day 1 in primary school. They are also fully socialised into the collective environment of the school.

What do you think they are doing ? You most have some ideas of where they are , just take some guesses?!
Many parents have to work constantly now as the COL is at an all time high thanks to the absolutely shocking leadership in the last 10 years by (no surprise!) a certain age demographic who will leave a legacy of awfulness in their wake .
I have teens and preteens and I was lucky enough to start my family 15 years ago , the difference in the cost of living and pressures between now and then are immense .
I was lucky to be able to be at home to teach my dcs skills and help them pre school, they went to school at 5/6 -ie: appropriate ages .
At 3/4 they would have struggled in a formal school setting and we were extremely fortunate to be able to be out and about during the day . Blaming parents these days of young kids while ignoring the cause is pure ignorance and actually a distraction of the failures of the previous generation. I’d love to see the demographic of pp commenting on the crap parenting of today .
I actually suspect @Copyandpastry could be young and childless /childfree. I was the best parent ever as a parent of imaginary children and I cringe at my judgments as a teacher pre children.

The trouble is with threads like this, us that it brings out that weird little group of posters who appear on lots of threads in different guises, determined to get women back in their rightful place: in the home.

There is no one reason for it. Unless you consider laziness. But there are lazy wohm parents and lazy sahm parents. Lazy young parents and lazy older parents.

If you want to teach your kids skills, you find the time. Teaching manners doesn't take extra time, nor does eating at the table- even if it's only twice a week at weekends. Teaching kids to pick up after themselves/ empty school bag etc saves you time. Potty training takes effort, but it's necessary. Teaching kids 'No' is hard, but it pays off massively when they're teens. But too many people want quick fixes now, with no eye on long term.

My kids are mid to late teens and are, by all accounts, amazing kids. They're not sporty or 6ft though, so I've failed a bit.

This is based on the ability to sign official documentation not evidence of proper literacy rates in reality

Not from the turn of the 20th century it isn't. By 1900 children were required to attend school between 5 and 12 and it was 5 and 10 for decades before that. Plenty of time to learn to read. I come from a huge family in the NE of England and I'm nearing 70. Parents and aunts and uncles and all elderly people in my vicinity in the 60s when I was growing up were perfectly able to read and write. I don't know where this is coming from.

Children copy other children too. If they see other children bringing their coats to you, they may think that’s the “rule”.

Left school before secondary age and they were born in 1949, I would argue that was pretty unusual.

There will be children who had one year of nursery or perhaps even no nursery, eventhough that will be less and less common.

If you can find childcare, it's a lot better than it used to be, because a lot of childcare hours are government funded. I remember having to pay for every hour spent at nursery.

Ordinary children left school at 13 then. But there was great enthusiasm for educating yourself, through evening classes and so on. Which is not the case now. My great grandfather came from a very ordinary, poor family and left school at 13. He then educated himself and worked his way up. He became a top advisor to the government and sent all his children to expensive public schools.